Effects of chronic insomnia and use of benzodiazepines on daytimeperformance in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of insomnia and chronic use of benzodiazepines on the cognitive and psychomotor performance of older adults. Three conditions, matched on age, gender, and education, were compared: 20 prolonged users of benzodiazepines for insomnia, 20 unmedicated insomniacs, and 20 good sleepers. The participants completed neuropsychological tests of memory, attention/concentration, psychomotor speed, and executive functions, as well as subjective evaluations of their actual performance. Individuals with insomnia, both medicated and unmedicated, performed worse than good sleepers on the attention/concentration factor. There was no other objective evidence of performance impairments. However, unmedicated insomniacs had lower performance expectancies and subjectively rated their performance more negatively relative to medicated insomniacs and good sleepers. Both insomnia conditions also rated their performance as lower compared with their perceived potential. It is suggested that the attention/concentration difficulties experienced by medicated and unmedicated older adults with insomnia may be linked to a state of hyperarousal. The discrepancies between subjective reports of daytime deficits and objective impairments may reflect a generalized faulty appraisal of sleep and daytime functioning among individuals with insomnia complaints. The implications of those findings for the assessment and treatment of late-life insomnia are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".